Perspective:
In his interviews with candidates for state Senate and House seats, Paul Choiniere found clear policy differences between the parties but also some agreement. However, he writes in his column that math will have the last word.
O ver the course of a few weeks I have had the opportunity to interview about two dozen candidates for state House of Representative districts in our region and moderate three debates in state Senate races.
As with the major party candidates running for governor, the legislative candidates offer few specifics as to how the state can close a $4.6 billion shortfall projected over the next two budgets, never mind address long-term trends that show the gap between projected expenditures and anticipated revenues continuing to grow.
The big fixed-cost drivers are paying off accumulated debt and keeping the state pension plan solvent after it was grossly underfunded for decades.
The nonpolitical answer to this problem is that it is going to take some combination of increased revenues — meaning taxes — cuts to programming and more labor concessions. Who wants to campaign on that platform?
Most of the candidates for the legislature, of both parties, agreed the labor unions will have to be asked back to the table. Republicans were more apt to want to drive labor back to negotiations with a stick (“We’re broke and you won’t get your retirements if you don’t work with us to fix this thing”), while Democrats talked of appealing to the good will of labor leaders.
No one seemed to take seriously the primary plank of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Stefanowski’s platform — the phasing out of the income tax. Republican candidates were courteous; saying that perhaps, over the long haul, they could reduce income tax rates. Democrats condemned the proposal as absurd and disingenuous, warning that education, aid to towns and cities, and human services would suffer in pursuit of Stefanowski’s noincome-tax big foot.
Democrats were all in on phasing in a $15 minimum wage and in their support for paid family leave. Few seemed terribly concerned about what these added expenses might mean for small businesses operating on tight margins.
Some Republicans referenced using an inflationary index to adjust the minimum wage.
Republican candidates did not close the door on paid family leave, but questioned the timing as the state tries to grow jobs. Some also pushed for self-funded optional plans, perhaps matched with tax incentivized business contributions, to cover the cost of extended leaves.
I came away from the interviews convinced Connecticut will sooner than later provide paid family leave. It is just a matter of when, how costs are covered and what it will look like.
I found consensus about the need to continue refocusing training and educational opportunities toward developing the skilled workforce necessary to meet the rapid workforce expansion at Electric Boat, at the supply chain of smaller companies that feed into it, and for high-tech manufacturing generally.
There was not much love expressed by either Republicans or Democrats for the “First Five” style of using big incentive packages and tax breaks to attract businesses to Connecticut or convince them to expand here.
It will be no surprise that Republicans often cited tax cuts and reductions in regulatory red tape as a way of stimulating the economy. Democrats pointed to repairing and modernizing the transportation system and investing in our cities as central to economic growth.
Most Democrats supported installing tolls, in some fashion, to help pay for transportation needs. Republicans mostly opposed them as another tax, but offered little in terms of alternative revenue sources.
Post-election, math will impose strict demands. Unlike the federal budget, a state budget must balance. In the process proposals to cut taxes, invest in cities, or beef up funding for job training could disappear with the campaign mailers. Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.